According to the AP from the Foxnews website a professor at University of Illinois was fired for saying he agrees with Catholic teachings on Homosexual sex. Personally I believe that this is a sign of things to come.

If the report is true, then I think UofI made a mistake. I think there is a difference between evangelizing for the beliefs of a religion and simply reporting, when asked, one’s own personal belief on a particular issue pertinent to the class.

I think it would be wrong to fire a professor if a professor, when asked, merely stated that he or she disagreed with a particular tenet of a religion.

Although it’s true that adjuncts have virtually no job security, the violation of academic freedom here is pretty egregious. The public affairs person says the univerity is “absolutely committed to teaching the theory of Catholicism…”, while the associate dean says “the e-mails sent by Dr. Howell violate university standards of inclusivity”. Since he was teaching Catholic doctrine, I don’t see how those statements can be reconciled.

The operative question at any university is “Did s/he have tenure?” No? Then keep your head down at keep your mouth shut.

(I have a sibling at BYU, who says holding one’s tongue is standard operating procedure at BYU. Again, UI-UC is a public university, but you can be not retained for all sorts of reasons. I read this story and I immediately think of Farr/Knowlton.)

As a public teacher at any level, I think it is important to be able to teach and withhold personal opinion. One would hope that students become more able to hear a dissenting opinion as they get older, and I think it quite vital at the university level for students to be able to disagree with students and teachers That said, there is no reason for a teacher to share their opinion. If the environment is hostile, hold your tongue. BYU, as a private university, and with a reputation for whiny students, is a different case, but on in which I would also likely have to hold my tongue often.

One of his lectures in the introductory class on Catholicism focuses on the application of natural law theory to a social issue. In early May, Howell wrote a lengthy e-mail to his students, in preparation for an exam, in which he discusses how the theory of utilitarianism and natural law theory would judge the morality of homosexual acts.

“Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY,” he wrote in the e-mail, obtained by The News-Gazette. “In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same.”

He went on to write there has been a disassociation of sexual activity from morality and procreation, in contradiction of Natural Moral Theory.

The student complaint came in a May 13 e-mail to Robert McKim, head of the religion department. The author of the e-mail said he was writing on behalf of a friend – a student in Howell’s class, who wanted to remain anonymous. The e-mail complained about Howell’s statements about homosexuality, which the student called “hate speech.”

“Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing,” the student wrote in the e-mail. “Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one’s worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation.”

Howell said he was presenting the idea that the Catholic moral teachings are based on natural moral law, and the Catholic understanding of what that means.

“My responsibility on teaching a class on Catholicism is to teach what the Catholic Church teaches,” Howell said. “I have always made it very, very clear to my students they are never required to believe what I’m teaching and they’ll never be judged on that.”

I have mixed emotions about this. For one thing, I’m very ignorant of how universities work. But at first glance, it seems like if you’re at a university level of education, you could take somebody having a strong opinion. But I’d like to see the emails, to determine the amount of pressure he appeared to put on the students.

And too, I wonder how much controversy would have been raised if he’d taken the opposite point of view. My impression is that places of higher learning are mostly liberal and condemn any conservative value. Then again, I wrote a pretty liberal letter to the university newspaper and they edited all the good parts out. Which dismayed me no end.

Okay. Re-read it and I’m not sure I can find anything about him actually preaching Catholic beliefs at a public university. But I agree with the student who wrote, “Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another.”

Here’s the problem: It most certainly is a FA issue. But at the same time, he’s an adjunct, and the university can fire him for virtually anything they might consider to be poor teaching. He’s got an EXTREMELY hard row ahead of him if he decides to pursue it. I guess if he can get FIRE to take on his case, he might have a chance…

(I’m discussing more the practical issues of job retention at a university — public or private.)

Bbell, I think any teacher has a responsibility to their students which can be more important than the first amendment. Because hey—if all teachers just knocked themselves out enjoying their freedom of speech (with regard to their classrom), there’d be a big problem.

That is funny. BYU is not restrained by the 1st Amendment as you well know. U f I is a state school. I graduated from U Of I. I certainly found the academic environment to be suppressing to say the least. I kept my opinions to myself and graduated. Similar to how many people find BYU to be oppressive.

“Quite honestly, the major wrong here is the fact that a non-religious university has a religion department. They should roll it into the philosophy department.”

Since the study of religion often has more to do with history, literature, anthropology, or sociology…that is just silly. Studying about religion is a perfectly legitimate academic venture at any university.

I was talking about academic freedom and not the 1st Amendment. Academic freedom is about freedom of the mind and the freedom of intellectual inquiry. It is a very different then the issue of the 1st amendment.

I haven’t litigated first amendment cases, but just looking at this from the perspective of the cases we discussed in law school it appears that the first amendment would be implicated. A public university is certainly an appendage of the state and cannot make employment decisions based on the content of protected speech.

It’s hard to tell for certain from the article, but it sounds like the university has made the stupid mistake of admitting that his contract was not renewed because of the email he sent. If that’s the case, then I think it is a violation of the professor’s first amendment rights.

Academic freedom is a completely different issue, and one that doesn’t really have a legal angle, but it seems to me that principles of academic freedom would also argue in favor of allowing the professor to express his view of catholic belief, especially in the context of a class on catholicism for pete’s sake.

#9: I don’t understand the distinction you are drawing between catholic doctrine and catholic belief.

“Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another.”

From the article, it appears to me that the professor was arguing that catholic beliefs regarding homosexuality are grounded in natural law. I’m not sure that’s a tenable position, but I think he has a perfect right to make that argument for purposes of discussion in a class on catholicism. Students who are homosexual or who are sympathetic to homosexuals also have a perfect right to disagree vehemently with that position.

If the professor taught that “Catholics believe that their views on homosexuality are grounded in natural law,” I think that’s perfectly fine. But if the professor were to say “Catholic beliefs on homosexuality are grounded in natural law,” that statement would be highly offensive to me if I were homosexual.

I’m not saying students shouldn’t be expected to be offended occasionally. I am saying that the statement would be in poor taste. A bit like the high school US history teacher of a missionary companion of mine who taught an entire lesson about the LDS church in a mocking tone, assuming wrongly that no one in the class was LDS.

Just because someone has the first amendment right to say something does not make it a good idea to actually say it. As a teacher, I would loathe saying something a student could interpret as an insult; comments like girls’ brains can’t handle math as well as boys’, all abortion is immoral, southerners sound stupid, Republicans are idiots, people that have more than four children are loco, or that immigrants weaken our country. Many people may believe it, an academic argument may be made to support it, but the statement that can be construed as an insult by a student holds little to negative educational purpose.

I am not saying that controversial issues should not be discussed, especially at the university level, I am just saying that teachers need to be smart enough to spark those debates without alienating their students.

I am not an attorney, but I have always been told that public schools and universities are given more latitude on the first amendment when it comes to their students and employees, particularly in cases where the individual is acting as a representative of the institution, and/or where the speech in question clearly disrupts the ability of the institution to maintain the integrity of the learning environment.

I do agree that firing the man represents a major over-reaction to the issue on the part of the university. I just don’t think its illegal.

the bigger question in all this is not the first amendment, nor academic freedom, nor whether or not this guy will become the new poster boy for right wing idiots to claim liberals are out to get religious guys. The question is why bbell thinks this is a “slippery slope.”

That is part of being an adjunct professor, being fired for any reason. It’s one of the worst things about the erosion of tenure at our public institutions.

The second thing is, he was not fired for his beliefs, he was fired for his actions. That email, which is only quoted in small bits would be the operative thing we’d have to see here. I’d hate to go all Catholic League on the U of I because of a few quoted lines. So this decision rests on his conduct in class, and the content of that email.

” It’s one of the worst things about the erosion of tenure at our public institutions.”

It’s a teaching position. A job. An important one. But one that you should be held accountable for how you do it. Less and less people, if any at all, should be given any kind of tenure. No matter what field you’re in, it’s all to easy to become complacent, and a concept such as tenure is a huge incentive for complacency. No, like the rest of us that have to demonstrate our value to the people who are paying for us, we should have to work every day as though our job depended on it and should not get a near-guarantee at employment into the future simply because of what we did a few years ago.

This is well off topic, which I would take to email with pleasure if it disrupts the discussion.

You are aware of the history of tenure, right? Not just the ‘history’ of Beck, Savage and Limbaugh and their collective jerimand against public school teachers?

As a counterweight to the power of politicians? To protect scholars who publish controversial research?

Tenure in primary and secondary education was a 40 year fight, People were, are and will be murdered for trying to form unions.

Tenure protects scholars to research ‘useless’ areas of knowledge, like fruit flies. Which just happen to share 60% of their genome with humans and can run through thousands of generations in a reasonable amount of time. (That is a Sarah Palin allusion, for the those who get their news from a single source)

Do you have a policy alternative for protecting those who publish controversial research?

How about the basics, a science teacher teaching evolution in a town where the school board opposes it. If someone objects, should that teacher have a hearing and be fired only if he/she crosses certain pre defined lines, or should the board be able to fire the teacher with no warning?

You might be interested in the perspective of one of the most famous-for criticizing-religion “new atheists” had to say about this case:

We can’t endorse using this kind of discussion as an excuse to expel people from academia — we want professors and students to be able to communicate freely with one another, without fear of retaliation. I see no sign that the professor was discussing the matter in a way that disrespects any of his students.

And the student complaining was doing so poorly. The professor’s ideas made him uncomfortable. He disliked what he said. He thought the professor was insensitive.

Those are not good reasons. If a student is never made uncomfortable, that student is not getting an education.

I would submit that public universities and public schools in states that allow collective bargaining have gone far beyond using tenure to protect their employees from unfair personnel practices. For example, there are public school teachers in many of our schools that are not getting the job done and are not being held accountable by their school’s administration because their tenure and/or their union’s collective bargaining agreement makes it incredibly difficult to take any personnel action of any significance against them.

I believe there is already enough federal and state policy and case law to protect employee rights in public institutions. These measures are more than sufficient to protect public teachers in right to work states like Virginia, which does not allow collective bargaining but still has strongly worded laws, policies, & regulations that protect against unfair personnel practices.

Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons that are fitted for that act. Consent is important but there is more than consent needed.
Here’s a snippet of one of the professor’s lectures.

He’s talking about a topic he knows nothing about for the purpose of shaming a portion of humanity he personally doesn’t like. If he would have said “The Catholic church believes….” he would have been home free. But no, he, in his position of authority, was condemning some portion of the human race without using any of those pesky facts.

Between the bad, strike that, nonexistent science, and the moral judgment against a perfectly legal way of being, and the asjunct status, I find it difficult to be sympathetic.

Do you all really want your kids to have to listen to Evangelical tirades against their very natures at state schools without recourse? Because that is what opposing such firings will lead to.

Brett,
Err… Beck and Savage? What does that have to do with it? I’m talking principles and you go right into ad hominem character attacks about to people I’ve come across on AM radio 6 years ago while driving through the desert and board out of my mind.

As a principle you don’t have a right to be employed indefinitely simply based on a series of past behavior or contributions to your employment, especially when the public is footing the bill.

The people who pay taxes live and die by their performance and the performance of their employer. A teacher should be no different. Now if you’re complaining about combining teaching and researching, that’s something different and I haven’t considered it too closely.

But generally, I think very few people should have anything resembling tenure. And even in those few cases, such as the Supreme Court, why not ten-year (teehee) or twenty-year?

My blockquote failed. The professor’s commments were mysteriously deleted, while my text was in block quotes. Here’s a part of the professor’s lecture, in safe quotes:

“One example [of Natural Moral Law] applicable to homosexual acts illustrates the problem. To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the “woman” while the other acts as the “man.” In this scenario, homosexual men have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted. I don’t want to be too graphic so I won’t go into details but a physician has told me that these acts are deleterious to the health of one or possibly both of the men. Yet, if the morality of the act is judged only by mutual consent, then there are clearly homosexual acts which are injurious to their health but which are consented to. Why are they injurious? Because they violate the meaning, structure, and (sometimes) health of the human body.”

Oh, and if the good professor is worried about “homosexual acts which are injurious to [the mysterious] their health” then he should be cheering loudly for lesbian sex as is is the least dangerous of all.

So, Prof doesn’t know subject he’s teaching.
Prof. assumes (his brand of ) Catholic ways are the only ways and everyone else is going to hell.
Prof is an adjunct and can be fired for no particular reason at all.

I am OK addressing the slippery slope issue. Basicly if its legal and OK at a public university for officers of the state AKA the UOI admins to do this then we are on a slippery slope where mainstream LDS/Catholic/baptist/muslim etc opinions on this issue are not welcome in public and those that espouse them face censure. As the years progress this will get worse and worse if these cases are allowed to stand. Its already happening as demonstrated by this case. Its a matter of it getting more and more prevelant.

I am perfectly comfortable deleting commentators whom I consider to be trolls so be aware that my threads will not be hijacked. You know who you are :)

Ah, but tenure is never indefinite employment. It’s employment in termination requires a specific hearing. Inefficiency in that hearing is a separate issue. (IE the whole ‘Rubber Room’ NY state controversy) The stats are about 50 profs each year lose tenure.

I should hope you are willing to address the “slippery slope” angle, as it is you who took it, naming this piece “Slippery Slope?” Do you have any other such incidents to share as an example of the ground underneath us shifting so that we begin sliding down the path to hell? Or is it the one example here?

Secondly is it really mainstream LDS/Catholic/Baptist/Muslim views that homosexuals are an aberration to natural life? Or is it not actually a fringe thought? I mean, it’s not a topic really addressed in the Bible. You get snippets of thought on the matter, but nothing authoritative. You get assumptions, supposition and cultural beliefs.

I don’t see a slippery slope. I see a pattern found also in private institutions where the institution releases those who veer off the general view of the institution. It’s not a slippery slope. It’s established standard operating procedure.

Sure, as long as they are not dong so for reasons that violate constitutional rights. How would you feel if a contract was not renewed because the professor was black? Or Mormon? Here we have a public institution admitting that the contract was not renewed because of the content of the professor’s speech. Is that really the kind of public universities we want? If a professor is teaching an idea you don’t like, why not just use your right to free speech to disagree with it, and show why it’s wrong? Why is it necessary to silence the professor?

Admittedly I’m jumping in without having looked at this particular issue very closely, but public universities, and religion departments in particular, should teach about religion, and should not teach religion. The University of Alabama’s Department of Religion sums this up quite well: http://www.as.ua.edu/rel/introduction.html There’s even a paragraph on the First Amendment.

bbell,
FWIW, I don’t see a slippery slope anywhere here. I see a nonrenewal of an adjunct’s teaching contract that might be suspect. Basically, if he’s adjunct, he doesn’t have tenure, and his teaching is presumably contracted on a year-to-year (or semester-to-semester) basis.

Like MCQ said, U of I seems to have been dumb in the way they went about this–if he’s at-will, his contract can clearly not renew his contract for no reason or for a good reason. The only thing they can’t is for a bad reason; this may have been a bad reason, but I both don’t know enough about the situation and don’t know employment law well enough to comment intelligently.

If the Catholic church claims that morality (as they teach it) is based on natural law, and that is what the man said, then he’s merely doing his job of teaching what the Catholic church claims to be true, which _is_ the purpose of the course.

He can’t cherry-pick and teach only the politically correct Catholic beliefs/doctrine. If there is a Catholic doctrine that his PC students find distasteful, then that’s not his fault.

There is likely more to the story. It may be that he inserted too much of his own opinion into the lesson plan (the one in the email), and failed to couch it as what the Catholic church believes/promulgates.

However, college professors have for many years injected their own PC notions into classroom presentations even when they go _against_ the curriculum, and colleges defend those professors (tenured or not) against student complaints when non-PC students are offended.

Lon, as I have said up-thread, he can think and believe and say anything he pleases, but if he is going to be a professor he needs to be able to express those sentiments in a way that won’t insult his audience.

And I’ll stand by the statement that there is no such person. Everyone offends someone at some point. So no one can teach at your school.

This was a class on Catholicism. And someone was offended that some Catholic doctrine got in there? Please. If someone takes a Women’s Studies class, they shouldn’t be offended when some Feminism gets in there. This was a liberal take down of someone who did not share their philosophy.

“But MCQ, he’s not being non-renewed for being black or Mormon. He isn’t getting renewed because he did something stupid.”

Being Mormon is considered to be stupid by a fair segment of the population, ESO. Do you really want to take that position? Whose standards of “stupidity” are our public universities going to enforce?

ESO, come on. You’ve got to see that university instruction at a public school cannot possibly take place under the threat of a non-offensiveness clause. I understand why private institutions like BYU feel as though they can and should enforce certain restraints on speech, but public institutions really can’t. A lot of things are offensive to someone.

I had a professor that said the word “motherf***er” frequently in class. He was offensive as can be, but he was also one of the best professors I ever had. I’m so glad that someone didn’t decide to be offended on my behalf and fire him to protect my sensitive ears.

What is the difference between a public university and a private university? Is the difference in academic freedom simply one of public funding? BYU can restrict academic freedom simply because it doesn’t have public funding while we expect publicly funded schools to have full academic freedom? Is that difference in academic freedom really going to stand solely on whether or not one receives public funding and the other doesn’t? Seems to me like a lame inconsistency.

So because he holds an opinion you don’t agree with, he has no rights to express that opinion and can be silenced for it. You only like rights for those who agree with you?

I’ll jump in here, but let me first say 1) I’m speaking of this issue in general terms without a lot of knowledge of the U of I case, and 2) The link in comment 41 is a good summary of what it means to teach religion in a public institution.

Classroom instruction in religious studies departments are meant to equip students with the skills necessary to effectively describe the beliefs and practices of various individuals or groups of people. Classroom instruction is not about assessing the rightness or wrongness of these beliefs. The issue is, of course, more complex than this, so for more discussion on this issue see our post: http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2008/06/the-danger-of-the-bracket/

If someone teaching a class on Catholicism describes an unpopular position of Catholics, then this shouldn’t be an issue. On the other hand if someone teaching a class on Catholicism advocates a particular Catholic position, then this should be an issue; regardless of how well liked or disliked this position is. The line between advocacy and description is not always clear (and ‘description’ itself may also be a kind of ideological position); but someone who is an adjunct should strive to make sure s/he sides with description.

There are numerous other avenues a professor can advocate his or her position on a particular issue, but the classroom, in most cases, should not be one of them.

All I am saying is that a smart teacher should restrict their teaching to “The ______________ (institution) believes ________________ (insert offensive belief here.” He ought not endorse the doctrine personally within the course of the class, which apparently he did.

I think it entirely plausible that there were other issues with this particular instructor and this e-mail was a useful out. If he had been an instructor the University really wanted around, they may have gone to bat for him.

It’s not clear to me that the professor crossed the line from description to advocacy here, but in any case, there is absolutely no evidence of any other “issues” with this professor that I’m aware of.

Dan, public vs. private means everything in cases like this. Private universities have no state funding and can do whatever they want. Public universities are funded by the state, so any action they take to silence speech is action by the state, which implicates the first amendment. Under the first amendment the state cannot take a position that restrains the content of speech, though it can make time place and manner restrictions.

You guys, this is what I said in my letter to the editor that they edited out:

Don’t leave money in your backpack. That’s what bras are for.

Empty your bowels every day in the event you should be sodomized.

Well, I agree the second comment is sort of gross, but it’s also good advice. I thought a university, being an institution of higher learning, could handle it. The editor was extremely apologetic but he said he just couldn’t put those things in. SUU is a state university, I believe.

I’m of a mind that at a college or university, you should be able to express yourself freely, but that was a wake-up call for me.

Academic Freedom and the First Amendment are two different things. To be honest I am more concerned about basic first amendment freedoms and less about more vague ideas like AF. Academic freedom is not in the bill of rights. Public Universities represent the state and states are bound per precedent by the First Amendment.

Emily Booker in Missouri is a good example of what can happen to a public U when they act like U OF I did in this case.

MCQ–I agree that there is no evidence of other issues, all I am saying is that, in my experience, employers will defend borderline behavior of employees they consider valuable and use borderline behavior as a last straw to get rid of employees they don’t necessarily want.

I imagine it is mighty hard to prove wrongful termination one way or the other when dealing with non-renewal of a contract. Maybe the guy was a jerk to his colleagues. Maybe he skipped his office hours. Maybe they aren’t offering that course next semester. Maybe someone else can teach it next time around, etc etc. Maybe they just don’t have the money for him. As a contract worker, isn’t there the understanding that your contract may not be needed after it’s expiration?

It’s a good thing we have publicly funded universities in this country then. Otherwise the first amendment would be totally obliterated by private universities and their right to stifle a professor’s freedom of speech.

I am sorry but the Emily Booker case does not share that much in common with this one. The Booker situation is an example of a public institution taking action against someone for refusing to endorse a political position. That is a dangerous and very slippery slope and we have seen other very scary examples in recent years – like the Methodist organization in New Jersey that had their tax-exempt status revoked for refusing the use of their pavilion for a civil union ceremony or the photographer in New Mexico who was forced to pay over $6000 in fees by the state human rights commission because she refused to photograph same-sex ceremonies.

But this is a public institution making a choice about how they wish to be represented to their students. They are not trying to force this professor to endorse anything he doesn’t believe in. They just expect him, in his capacity as their employee, to communicate with students in a way that doesn’t undermine their institutional values.

I just threw it in with a letter I wrote after I worked in a bookstore and everybody had black backpacks. I wish I hadn’t said it now, I’m rather enbarrassed at my lack of class. It’s just a random irrational concern.

But I didn’t realize the newspaper had to be so careful. So I learned a tiny bit how a major learning institution works.

“I imagine it is mighty hard to prove wrongful termination one way or the other when dealing with non-renewal of a contract. Maybe the guy was a jerk to his colleagues. Maybe he skipped his office hours. Maybe they aren’t offering that course next semester. Maybe someone else can teach it next time around, etc etc. Maybe they just don’t have the money for him. As a contract worker, isn’t there the understanding that your contract may not be needed after it’s expiration?”

ESO, we’re not talking about a wrongful termination case here. The university has already admitted that they decided not to renew his contract because of what he said in the email. No further speculation is required. the question is, given that they are getting rid of him for the reason that they don’t like what he said, is that a violation of his constitutional rights? That’s what we’re talking about. How do you analyze that question?

the question is, given that they are getting rid of him for the reason that they don’t like what he said, is that a violation of his constitutional rights? That’s what we’re talking about. How do you analyze that question?

Since his comments broach on advocacy, I would say ‘no’, none of his constitutional rights were violated. The University has an interest in distancing itself from advocating any particular religion, or even appearing to advocate any particular religion. I do think, however, that the case could be effectively made that principles of academic freedom have been violated. Whether he clearly advocated his religious beliefs as opposed to describing Catholic teaching, is not clear. At the institutional level a public university should distance itself from these kinds of situations. At the personal level, however, this is where something such as tenure comes into play. If this was a tenured faculty member he could more likely afford to challenge this boundary.

To restate (and perhaps clarify), it could be argued (rather persuasively) either way; but from an institutional perspective it makes sense to stay away from these kinds of shades of grey. This is, however, where something such as tenure comes into play (wow that rhymes). Someone tenured can examine, and play in, these shades of grey, often to the chagrin of the institution.

Just read the email again. What’s missing here is a thorough discussion of why the e-mail is offensive. If a non-tenured professor wrote a similar email to his class about Mormon beliefs, we’d be appalled. But because he compares homosexual relations to pedophilia and bestiality, and not Mormons to devil worshipers and cultists, we defend him.

Tim, I would defend him regardless. You cannot have a first amendment right that protects only speech that you agree with. That is why the American Nazis were allowed to march in Skokie, Ill. Everyone found their message disgusting and repulsive and were appalled that they would go to Skokie of all places, to march. The case to stop them went all the way to the Supreme Court, but ultimately, they were allowed to march. That’s what the first amendment does, it protects even speech that we all hate, so that we all have the right to speak. It doesn’t make things easy and comfy for everyone, it just makes everyone free to speak.

If you have taken a school law course you know that the University has some pretty high-level case law they can use to support their position. I doubt they will back down and it is far from certain that they would lose in court.

Yet doesn’t the fact that he was these students’ teacher make a difference? This was a statement made as a representative of his university. Had he said such things in his own time to his own audience, I wouldn’t have any problem with it. But he said them to students entrusted to him by the university, on the university’s dime.

I taught high school science for a couple of years. As a non-tenured public science teacher, I could have taught pseudo-science to my students, but I probably would’ve been fired over it. Yet that wouldn’t have been a violation of my First Amendment rights. I could have made disparaging comments about students or about their religion, their families, their sexual preferences, etc. in class, and probably would’ve been fired over it. Yet that wouldn’t have been a violation of my First Amendment rights.
At the end of the day, I could go home and say whatever I wanted to. I could blog about ridiculous pseudo-science. I could write blogs making fun of whatever religions I wanted to. I could exercise my First Amendment rights–as an individual, on my own time.

Had this professor stated the ideas in his email on his own time to his own audience, that would have been within his rights. Unfortunately, that’s not what he did.

Tenure is 100% irrelevant to the first amendment question. A person does not have more constitutional rights when they have tenure, or less because they don’t.

I fail to see why this is 100% a first amendment issue. But if you insist in stating it in these terms then this situation also presents a problem concerning the “establishment of religion”, which, if taken as what I’ve been calling “advocacy” of a particular religious position (and I believe parts of his email could be read this way), is grounds for non-renewal of an adjunct’s contract. A tenured professor has no more “rights” then anyone else; but a tenured professor also does not have a contract to renew. A class offered by an adjunct is not worth the university’s trouble of defending in a situation that could be read different ways by different people. A university has fewer recourses to tenured faculty.

Tim, my understanding of this is that he was teaching a class on catholicism and said that the catholic view on homosexuality was based on “natural law.” That’s not a statement of advocacy, necessarily, in my opinion. It’s a debatable point for certain, but it’s a view that one might express and make the subject of study in the context of a class on catholicism. Are we prepared to say that the state should be able to censor the points made the subject of study by a professor in a public university class? To me, that kind of speech is more important than a professor advocating positions on his own time to his own audience. We’re talking about a class at a public university here. Do we really want professors at public universities to be restricting their class content out of fear for their jobs. Do we just want to keep teaching in the mainstream and restrict everything else? Because that is the effect of what is happening here.

“I could exercise my First Amendment rights–as an individual, on my own time.”

Yes, you certainly could. And based on what you are saying, soon that will be the only place you will be able to exercise them. I’m appalled at the lack of outrage here. Are we so eager to just give up on freedom of expression at public universities? Doesn’t anyone see anything to fight for here?

“A tenured professor has no more “rights” then anyone else; but a tenured professor also does not have a contract to renew. A class offered by an adjunct is not worth the university’s trouble of defending in a situation that could be read different ways by different people. A university has fewer recourses to tenured faculty.”

First of all, it’s “than” not “then.” Further, no one is asking the university to defend anything, but perhaps free speech at a public university is something worthy of mounting a defense for. If that is “not worth the university’s trouble of defending” then nothing is. I guess our public universities are just all about commerce now. There was a time people found free speech to be worth dying for. Now it’s not even worth the price of a teaching contract. When your freedom of expression is gone, please remember that it was you who decided what it was worth.

No, but claiming that the first amendment question, in this situation, can be discussed as completely unrelated to tenure, which is of course a central issue for academic freedom, doesn’t really leave you with many other alternatives. Perhaps you could clarify.

You’ve completely ignored my argument, even after I put it in your terms, that the establishment clause of the first amendment is also at play here. From the institution’s perspective, the perception of advocating any particular religion at a state university is problematic for not only the continued existence of the religion department, but the university as a whole. It isn’t the price of a teaching contract that they should be worried about. This is also where tenure comes into play as I’ve stated above.

Rather than choosing to actually engage the argument you’ve decided to correct my spelling and rant about the commercialization of public universities. Sad, indeed.

And SmallAxe, I think your spelling is fine. It’s my spelling MCQ so tactfully corrected. And then he went on to make his own punctuation mistakes. Apparently he needs instructions on how to properly use a question mark.

SmallAxe, I’m just focusing on the question that I consider the most important by far, which is the speech issue. Tenure is not relevant to that issue.

The establishment clause is not a real issue here because the school is not requiring the class; it is an elective. And as I said, I don’t see any evidence here that the professor is requiring the students to join catholicism or even sympathize with its views as part of the class. He stated a position regarding one view of catholic doctrine. He didn’t say that the students were even required to adopt that position. From what I can see, they were free to disagree with it. The only freedom I see being restricted here is the professor’s freedom to state certain views of catholic doctrine.

Sorry if you were bothered by my spelling correction. I see that problem a lot for some reason and it irritates me.

Tim, I’ve read the email several times now. Is there something particular you want to point out?

Also, SmallAxe, my rant is not really about commercialization of public universities. Apparently, either I’m not communicating or you’re misreading me. I’m trying to say that we are not valuing free expression very highly. That is sad, and potentially dangerous, in my opinion.

I’m just focusing on the question that I consider the most important by far, which is the speech issue. Tenure is not relevant to that issue.

My argument has been that you cannot separate out these issues. They are all a part of the same situation. There is no doubt that free speech is an issue here, but so are academic freedoms and the role of religion in a state institution.

The establishment clause is not a real issue here because the school is not requiring the class; it is an elective.

And as I said, I don’t see any evidence here that the professor is requiring the students to join catholicism or even sympathize with its views as part of the class.

I just read the entire email, and I tend to agree with you; although he could have been a bit more careful. The last paragraph of his email, for instance, pushes in a direction of advocacy (although it’s not explicit).

I’ve always said that I haven’t looked at this situation very closely. If the school’s decision was based solely on this email then I would have to say that it’s most likely jumping the gun, and I would side with Howell.

Yes, it matters. As I said, I’m not sure there’s advocacy here, but an elective class at a university is a long way from bible readings for the whole school at the beginning of every day. Under this case, the university clearly cannot require this class, but in order to prove a violation of the establishment clause, it would have to be more than a class studying catholicism. As the case you cite says:

“it might well be said that one’s education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.”

The key word in that paragraph is “objectively.” I don’t think one can say that the email in question is strictly objective, but it is not advocating a particular religion either. It contains mostly an explanation of two ideas: utilitarianism and natural moral theory and applies them to sexuality. It has little to do with catholicism, but concludes with the idea that catholic views on morality are based on natural moral theory or, as the professor states it, “natural reality.” Saying that a particular moral view of sexuality is based on “natural reality” sounds like advocacy, but it appears to me that the professor is using “natural reality” to refer to natural moral theory. The two paragraphs prior to the concluding one begin with phrases that argue in favor of an objective reading of his statements: “If what I have said is true…” and “Natural Moral Theory says that…” Both of these phrases imply that he is giving objective instruction about a particular philosophy or moral view.

None of this is intended to imply that I agree with this professor’s logic. I think his tying together of catholic beliefs and “natural moral theory” is highly suspect. But from what we have access to, I don’t think he’s requiring the students to adopt that view, rather than explaining that such a view exists and what its principles are.

I’ll agree with your reading of Howell’s email. As I stated in my last comment, while Howell could have been more clear, after reading the entire email I do not read it as advocating Catholicism; so I suppose we don’t have much more to say here.

As for Abington v. Schempp, the paragraph you cite endorses the “objective” study of the Bible and religion. It has nothing to say about allowing less than objective approaches to religion as long as the class (or practice) is not required. This particular case has been an important one in the development of religion departments throughout the US. I know of no religion department at a public university that would allow the advocacy of any religion in the classroom, regardless of whether or not the class was required. Several scholars such as Russell McCutcheon have written on rise of religion departments in relation to Abington v. Schempp and stress this point (although I can’t find the exact article at this moment).